Page 2334 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 29 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
level of understanding, and I said that I would not rule out reviewing our tax regime. I answered a question just last week. This is what Mr Smyth does. He stands up and asks a question based on a falsehood, “having ruled out any tax relief”, which I have never done. Of course, it is impossible to answer these questions. The question was prefixed with a false statement, “having ruled out”, which the government has never done.
In fact, I answered the question last week when I was asked whether I would review our taxation regime and I said, “Well, yes, we do it every budget.” I have now sat in on six budget cabinets and I have been involved in the production of six budgets. In every one of those six budgets there has been a detailed discussion by the cabinet around our taxation regime and the range of revenue measures that are incorporated within the budget.
It is probably fair to say—though I would have to confirm it—that in relation to each one of those six budget cabinets that I have been involved in the Treasury produces a separate and specific submission essentially entitled “Revenue”. It provides a detailed assessment to the government of issues around revenue, taxation, fees and charges, and we will be doing it again. We have done it every budget for the last six budgets and we will again, as we do in every budget discussion or round. We will give consideration to the revenue measures that are part and parcel of the budget. In that context let me repeat what I have stated on a number of occasions over this last week: the ACT government is not a high taxing regime.
Mr Mulcahy interjecting—
MR STANHOPE: It is fundamental to the question that was asked. In the consideration that we will give to our revenue measures, to a taxation regime and to whether or not there should be some adjustment to any of the taxes and charges, we will take account of our relative revenue effort as against the rest of Australia and having regard to our expenditure effort. As everybody in this place knows, against national averages our expenditure effort sits well above the national average—somewhere of the order of at least 20 per cent—whereas all of the advice available to us from the Australian Bureau of Statistics and from the Commonwealth Grants Commission is that our revenue efforts essentially meet the Australian average.
As I have indicated previously, the Australian Bureau of Statistics, in the latest data available to us, indicates that total state and local government taxation in the ACT is $2, 386 per capita against a national average for state and local government taxation of $2,594 per capita, showing that there is a pretty large gap and that Australian Capital Territory state and local government taxation revenue is lower than the national average. The Australian Bureau of Statistics reveals that the ACT’s per capita state and local government taxation is lower than New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia and South Australia.
We do not tax at the same rate; we tax at a lower rate in the ACT than New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia and South Australia, despite providing government services at a far higher level of resource than any of those places. It is interesting that in the constant parroting by the Liberal Party in relation to rates within the ACT that the increase in general rates in last year’s budget, whilst they better
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .